B io ph ile Issu e 18 - Biophile Magazine

INBOX: OUR READERS WRITEHow muchcrueltycan youswallow?magine you've just eaten an enormouslunch. So enormous that you can hardlyImove. In fact, you are finding it difficultto breathe. You feel bloated, swollen and inagony."Why did I do it?, you ask yourself."Never again!" Now imagine you didn't havethe choice. What if, like the geese usedto produce foie gras, you were forced torepeat the process time and time again?What if, for the next 16 days, at regular - alltoo short - intervals, somebody pusheda rigid metal tube down your throat andfilled your stomach with food.The pain, discomfort and utter miseryyou would feel can only be imagined.Importing it, supplying it, ordering it,buying it and eating it means you are partof the cruelty, pain and suffering! You don´thave to be a bunny-hugging vegetarian towant to outlaw deliberate animal cruelty.It may be tradition, it may be culture,but times have progressed and the undeniablepain and suffering caused by modernfarming methods are unacceptable. foiegras is one of many unspeakably cruelitems we eat, but unlike chicken whichis the mainstay for many South Africanhouseholds, foie gras is trendy and forthose with the funds to spend outrageousamounts on a small plate consisting of 85%fat and 100% suffering.The foie gras industry often tries tojustify its practices by saying they are justan extension of the natural, pre-migrationgorging behaviors of migratory fowl, firstnoted by the Egyptians thousands of yearsago. However, this claim is patently falseon several accounts. First, migratory geesenever gorge themselves up until the pointof death before migration. Such extremebehaviors would be physically incapacitatingand would be antithetical to theirsurvival. The livers of wild ducks and geesemay expand up to twice their normal size,prior to migration, not a ten-fold expansionas found in forced-feeding production.Second, the duck species (MuscovyDavid Hill, the director of Good Relations(the Monsanto public relations in theUK), ran the media campaign for Blair’sLabour Party in the General Election victoriesof 1997 and 2001. Another eminentresearcher, Stanley Ewen, said that hewas told the same story by another seniorfigure at Rowett:“That conversation is sealed in my mind.My jaw dropped to the floor, I suddenlysaw it all – it was the missing link. Untilthen I couldn’t understand how on MondayArpa had made the most wonderfulbreakthrough and on Tuesday it was themost dreadful piece of work and rejectedout of hand.”The vicious campaign against Dr Pusztaiwas as coordinated as it was callous.Reports attacking him were published bythe Illuminati, Royal Society and ScienceTechnology select committee of the Houseof Commons with its pro-Blair majority.Cabinet Minister Jack Cunningham,another Blair lapdog, condemned DrPusztai’s “wholly misleading results” andsaid that all GM food in Britain would besafe to eat. But how does a#+”$@ like Cunningham know thatcompared with the world’s leadingauthority? It has nothing to do with truthor protecting the public. It is politicalbusiness. GM food is a done deal. The Blairgovernment is one of the most corrupt inall British history and it has fundamentalties to the biotech industry. In its first twoyears in office GM food companies metgovernment officials 81 times.Blair’s unelected Science Minister LordSainsbury is a dedicated supporter of GMfood.When he was appointed he held largeshareholdings in biotech companies Datatechand Innotech which were placed ina blind trust so that he could not knowinglybenefit from decisions he makes ingovernment – hummmm has he forgottenhe has them? He made 20 million UKPounds profit in four years from Innotechand such wealth allows him to be the biggestsingle donor to Blair’s Labour Partywith payments of more than 8 million UKPounds since it came to power.But what of Professor James, the head ofRowett, who also felt the wrath of dictatorBlair? At the time he enjoyed good relationswith Blair and he’d been chosen tohead the planned Food Standards Agency.But that changed after Dr Pusztai madehis comments.“You destroyed me” he told Dr Pusztai.“This is how the Illuminati work to stifledissent and mislead the public. You wantto advance your career? OK do what wewant and you’ll be fine. Speak your mindand we’ll destroy you.”Anonymousand Mulard or Moulard) used in foie grasproduction are non-migratory and notpredisposed to gorging as are wild geese.In addition, wild birds who do migrateexpend the excess fat for migration, unlikethe severly confined birds in foie grasfacilities. Artificially-induced gorging isextremely painful and debilitating to thesebirds, as noted by the European ScientificCommittee on Health and Animal Welfare's1998 report, which concluded that"Whilst the domestic goose might well beadapted to store food before migration,it is less likely that a cross between thedomestic duck and the Muscovy duck, theMulard, has such potential for food."The foie gras industry also defends theirproduction methods by claiming it is along-held tradition. However, ducks andgeese fattened with figs in olden timeswere not forced to endure living insidedark warehouses in cramped and dirtywire cages with little or no water andforce-fed with wide, inflexible and nonlubricatedpipes.The inherent cruelty of foie gras hasresulted in the production being banned inmany countries around the world, includingSouth Africa, the UK, most USA states,Isreal and others and many states arestarting to ban the supply in restaurants.It is still available in South Africa throughimports however, and the cycle of crueltycontinues.Kindly visit www.sentience.co.za to seehow you can help end the supply and availibilityin South Africa with a click of yourmouse. We welcome 'no foie gras' pledgesfrom restaurants and any companies whohold large functions, stating they will notserve foie gras at their functions or establishmentsand these will be advertised onthe website as caring companies.Toni Brockhoven8 Biophile Issue 18